Hi Physics, thank you for your feedback! I'm just learning to use a talk page here. Thanks for explaining about the appropriate places for external links! Burr Oak 23:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burr-oak (talk • contribs)
Ach, thanks!--Burr Oak 16:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burr-oak (talk • contribs)
You get an award
Valued Contributor Award
You have been identified as a valued contributor and your efforts are appreciated. We are honored to present you with the Valued Contributor Award and we thank you for donating your time, expertise and effort to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. Thanks. (more details)
...that DYK's are often viewed as badges of honor showing that a user knows how to create high quality articles that follow Wikipedia's most strict standards, and that many users add the DYK userbox and DYK topicon to their userpage?
Thanks! I'm doing well for compliments today :o I've been thinking of adding a bit more explanation on my user page, but on the other hand, it gives an air of mystery in it's current state. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help with The September Concert Page
Many thanks for the help with the page I am contributing: The September Concert. I am now just getting the proper list of references to prove its notability. There have been articles written in the New York Times and some television spots about it, totaling somewhere on the order of 15 references. Once compiled I will put them in the page. Of course any feedback will be of great help (to this novice!) Rbid1 (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well we've been working hard to meet all the criteria for a new Wikipedia entry and feel we are getting pretty close. Please let me know if you have any suggestions before we put it out there for the public. Don't yet know how to make the page live so any help would be appreciated. Rbid1 (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get all your points and will continue to work on it. The only question I have is with the paraphrasing issue. I am in touch with Haruko Smith who runs the September Concert webpage and she is very happy with the way the Wikipedia page reads at the moment. Could I get her permission to keep it as is or do we still need to change the language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbid1 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re: [usermjmannmsw:clinical social work]
Thanks for your help! I added one more paragraph, one more non-online reference, and scaled back some of the long sentences throughout. Can we go live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjmannmsw (talk • contribs) 20:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think it's ready :) I'll move it for you, as you have to be an editor for at least 4 days before you can move articles. One pointer: when you leave a message on someone's talk page, click on the little--Mjmannmsw (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC) blue pencil icon at the top of the edit box to "sign" your message - this automatically leaves the date, time and your username. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, very enthusiastic use of the signature button :D I did the page move wrong, its a bit more complicated than I thought, so have asked for help from someone more experienced - see below. Hopefully will be sorted soon.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this userspace draft is ready for the article space, and offered to move it for the new user. However, there is a redirect at Clinical_social_work and a bit of page history before the redirect, so I'm not sure how to do the move. Could someone help please?
Close to ready, sure; can I ask you to please make a few mods, before moving?
Suggest remove "In the United States, " - to avoid systemic bias; OK, so, for now the article might be US-centric, but that can improve.
Please add refs, even if repeating. For example, first sentence - ending "couples, families, or groups. " - stick a ref there. Best, add a ref after every *sentence* - it avoids creeping into 'original research', shows people where to check stuff, and avoids the hassle when people add a new bit in-between;
Chzz was born in 1903. Chzz is English. <ref> blah </ref>
...gets edited to...
Chzz was born in 1903. Chzz likes sausages. Chzz is English. <ref> blah </ref>
...does the ref cover that? who knows.
Careful to be definitive; Treatment methods may include, but are not limited to, providing individual, marital, couple, family, and group psychotherapy.[according to whom?]
Please try to avoid "typically", "in most states" and suchlike. Stick to rock-solid fact. See WP:WEASEL
In most states, the practice of Clinical Social Work is requires a license regulated by state licensing boards, or a certification by national certifying boards.[citation needed]
philosophy of the social work discipline sets it apart from other professions[original research?]
Be neutral, and factual; this is not; understand their clients from a person-in-environment perspective; they understand that not only can the family, community or society in which a client lives have an impact on the individual person, but social workers also recognize the impact an individual person can have on their environment - see WP:NPOV
Please add more references. 2 really is not enough for "significant coverage in reliable sources" (WP:VRS) - three is the absolute minimum I could live with
Add {{See also|Social work}} to the top.
Please, feel free to ignore all this advice - it's just opinion. If you disagree, please, just use another {{helpme}} and ask someone else to shift it for you - no problem.
First of all, the first citation and most of the first paragraph is taken directly from the state law which is cited. Therefore, this is not "original research," it is written law. Secondly, it is necessary in this case to be US-centric because the practice of social work in the united states is regulated by licensure law, and manifests differently in diffent countries according to their own laws. For instance, if you look up the laws in the country of Canada, clinical social workers are not permitted to diagnose. Therefore, it is inappropriate to make blanket statements in this context without being specific as to the governing authority one is speaking of. The person-in-environment perspective is included in many social work textbooks in the united states, inluding the one that I referenced in this article (hence the reference). Thanks for your feedback, but I disagree with most of it. --Mjmannmsw 22:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjmannmsw (talk • contribs) 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First - OK, cool; so add the reference to the appropriate law, at the end of each bit, so I can tell there it is from.
Second - OK; maybe therefore this should be called "Clinical social work (US)", and the redirect should remain? Unless it is a clear primary usage of this world; but I'd think that the term "Clinical social work" is used quite globally.
I don't think you can delete accounts as far as I know. As for my old talk page, I'm happier just leaving it there for historical purposes, I don't think it's doing any harm.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not essential, but it's generally helpful to do that. At the very least, the article gets put into a category that alerts other editors of what needs to be done, and frequently it gets the creator to fix the problem. The one exception is unreferenced BLPs, which should either be referenced or BLPPRODded on sight; all other maintenance tags aren't 100% necessary. I'm really glad that someone's actually trying it out; I hope you enjoy it. I do have fun with it (I've put in a few of the entries on WP:DAFT as a result); NPP has its moments. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you can do is tag the page, then hit the back button when it reloads and the mark as patrolled box will show up again. Also, PRODding a page doesn't automatically mark it as patrolled, and if you move a page (which happens with some frequency) you have to go back to the redirect and mark it as patrolled and/or tag it for R3. And one more thing; if you come across an article in the unpatrolled log that doesn't exist because it got moved without a redirect, you're supposed to recreate the page with {{db-unpatrolled}}. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry I've been out for the last couple days. I'm impressed, actually; you're catching on rather fast. I use Twinkle myself, although some peope like to use Huggle (haven't tried it myself). When it comes to BLPPRODding things, I will generally do a fairly quick (5 minute) search to see what I can find; if I can't find anything, I'll just BLPPROD it. I view it as the creator's responsibility, but with new users I obviously will cut them a bit of slack. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks gnomes for taking the time to read my article on the cooperstown cocktail.
if i have time i will add a few more of the cocktails to wikipedia as I learn about them.
see you around wiki. :)
Chipotle32 (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
helpme I'm not sure what to do about Claire Khaw which I found on NPP. I don't think I can CSD it as an attack page, as it's sourced, but on the other hand it's so entirely negative that I don't feel like slapping on a neutrality tag and then moving on is really enough. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the subject is openly seeking the attention, and unfortunately, seems to have made herself notable. All I can suggest would be to remove the content that is referenced to sources that may not be reliable, such as ref #2 which looks like a personal blog. I will leave your helpme tag open in the hopes that someone with more experience then I can provide you with some additional suggestions. Monty84523:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your welcome message. It's really helpful since I am new around here, but I will try to do my best.
I have a small question if you have time, I have noticed that on some pages like Limassol down on the left there is a language tab where you can see the page in different languages how I add it on other pages?
The links on the left are to other language versions of wikipedia. For example, on Limassol, the link to the french wikipedia takes you to http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limassol. It appears by adding the code [[fr:Limassol]] to the bottom of the page. Similarly, the Japanese one is [[ja:リマソール]]. You need the page to already exist on other language versions of wikipedia, or if you speak the language you can create and write it yourself (but don't copy and paste a machine translation, as they tend to be fairly poor language quality). Hope that makes sense, ask me if you need more explanation. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ebe, I don't understand what you wrote in the wikiquette alert report: "I was not minding it just to the user did more still on my editor review." Do you mind what he said, or are you making the alert because you thought I was upset by it? If it's the second, then I don't think a report is needed - I wasn't personally upset, I just thought I should stick up for you as his comment seemed a bit aggressive.
I see you've deleted the conversation now. It's probably the sensible choice. It's good that you're seeking feedback to improve, and that doesn't give anyone the right to be rude to you. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to note the large notice prominently displayed at the top of this article stating quite clearly: "This article is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed." You may also wish to take note of the fact that the edit summary thus far describes that I have written only the lede - and references are not required in a lede where the material is subsequently repeated, with references appended, in the body of the article. Keristrasza (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the notice, but in my defence, you hadn't edited it for almost an hour, and the article is about a controversial subject, in which unreliable information could cause harm and distress to the people involved. Hence I thought it important that the article be referenced as soon as possible, whereas for a totally uncontroversial article with that notice I would have left it a lot longer. I don't mean to tread on toes when new page patrolling, and the tag wasn't meant as a criticism of your work, but I have to balance that concern with making sure controversial content doesn't remain unreferenced.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not going to fall out with you over something as trivial as a ?ref template, and I can accept that anyone unaware of the case might raise their eyebrows: it is, after all, a shocking (indeed, Lord Goldsmith called it "appalling") scenario. It just irked me at the time when I was trout-slapped with an edit conflict that completely broke my train of thought and knocked me off kilter for the rest of the afternoon. Hence my, admittedly bitey, rapid response here, for which I hope you'll accept my explanation. Keristrasza (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, and I'm sorry I made you feel trout slapped! It's a pretty shocking case, I'm surprised I haven't heard about it before. It's shaping up to be a really good article. Regards, --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This cookie is for you, for the new page patrol training exercise you're currently carrying out.
I've glanced at it a couple of times and it gives some really good examples of how to deal with various kinds of new pages. Would it be possible, once you've finished, to keep it somewhere please? Since NPP seems to be understaffed I was thinking of lending a hand, but with finals looming I don't have enough time at the moment. The completed exercises would be great worked examples to learn from. Regards, Brammers (talk/c) 10:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks very much for the cookie! Yum.
I'm glad you think the NPP exercise is useful. On the other hand, I'm not sure about making the tutorial available long-term for a few reasons. Firstly Ebe would have to be happy for that to happen. Secondly the tutorial is very personalised, my teaching style is tailored towards Ebe and I've expanded on the areas he needs to work on and not gone into much detail on the areas he's already fine with. Thirdly I'm hesitant to imply that I'm any kind of authority on this, I haven't been doing NPP that long and so for many of the examples we won't have reached the perfect answer (although hopefully the answers we arrived at are reasonable).
I do think that NPPers are thrown in at the deep end without much feedback or support for a job that's quite responsible. I'd be interested in hearing your ideas about writing some training pages available for all - maybe based on the tutorial with some input from more experienced wikipedians. Or maybe even expanding this into a training scheme, as I think the personal feedback/discussion element is helpful.
(P.S) I am tired of people talking about me without me knowing. It happens alot. Also, I am okay for you to make the NPP exercise long-term. I am impatient for the next round. (I am so impatient that 1 tab is your contribs for knowing when you edit the NPP tutorial. That is how I knew about round 2.) ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs22:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Ebe - I didn't mean to talk about you behind your back! I was going to ask what you thought of Brammer's idea at some point later.
I saw a thing with problems that the tutorial can help. May I speak of it? I will be putting it on and if you do not want it, feel free to remove it. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs18:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some help will be appreciated
Hi PIAG (Sorry for the abbreviation ), I just wanted to ask some help on an article I recenetly created. I'm trying to look for a hook somewhere but I'm just hitting a wall at this point. Can you help me out? --TitanOne (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, tricky one. It's a good article but nothing really jumps out as a hook. Maybe something like: that Michelle Cabillon-Camaclang graduated with a degree in computer science but went on to become an international certified makeup artist? The computer science thing would need to be referenced for that hook, I can't see whether it is at the moment.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS.My thoughts on the abbreviation are so far undecided
Hey there. I declined the speedy deletion tag you put on CADprofi because it is really not that promotional. I'm going to do a bit of minor rewording, but I don't think it was an issue enough to warrant deletion. If you still think it should be deleted, I'd take it to AfD. Thanks! – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs19:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gorilla Warfare, I speedied CADprofi on the 5th of april for copyvio and it was then deleted. It was recreated on 13 April and I haven't tagged the current version at all. I think there must be something wrong with your notification system. Best, --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We need to find at least a couple other RfF folks; ideas?
Any ideas how to find more RfF people? I had thought that I could look at the WikiGuides page, see who has removed themself from the volunteer list, and message them to say "hey, if you want a less-structured go-at-your-own-pace way to help noobs, and to help noobs who specifically want help and will likely respond to you, try out RfF." In all honesty, RfF seems one of the smoother-working ways to iron out new articles, so I'm kind of surprised it doesn't have both more helpers and more helpees. I'd go advocate for RfF in whatever discussions are ongoing about "how to keep new articles from being crappy", but I'm not really well-tied into the WP management community. Ideas? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that sounds like a plan. I've been trying to think of ways to advertise it but haven't come up with much - reaching out personally to people sounds like a good idea. I find it a really nice change from new page patrol, because most of the people actually want to spend time writing a decent article, and you can give help rather than slapping tags on.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damienn jones prefix:Wikipedia:FAQ until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Catfish Jim& the soapdish19:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict confusion
Yep... I've closed the AFD (hopefully correctly for a non-admin closure) as speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. I BLP-PROD'd the original article, which was deleted without comment by the original contributor. Let's see whether they do the same with the redirected version... Catfish Jim& the soapdish19:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I think I'm making a bit of a hash of this one! I removed the BLPPROD when I reread it and noticed the links to external websites - but looking at them more closely, two don't seem to work properly and only one leads to any information about him, which is just a myspace page. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please take another look at my page
Hi... (I do love your handle, btw). About a month ago you had reviewed my User Page at User:Evan1t/Riverbed. Since then I made the changes you asked and tweaked a few other things. I would very much appreciate it if you would take another look. Thank you very much! —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC).
Hello, Physics is all gnomes, congratulations because that I granted you Featured user status. Thanks for your contributions and I hope that you continue. You also have you own day (28 May, 2011).
Show it off
Add {{User:Ebe123/FU|user=Physics is all gnomes|day=28 May, 2011}} to your userpage.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on User:Physics is all gnomes/NPP tutorial/Hyro Da Hero, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs12:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took another look at your contribs, I found that you taged for speedy deletion a band called "Legendary Tunes". The username has a COI and does violate the username policy. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs12:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So welcome! I thought you retired. I actually removed you from my watchlist at a point. So I have been through Admin Coaching, am an administrator and bureaucrat on incubator:, a wiki for developing new language wikis (exempt Wikisource and Wikiversity). Oh, and one of your NPP pages have been spedily deteted. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk Contribs19:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, sounds like you've done loads :) incubator sounds interesting. I guess I'm semi-retired, or on sabbatical, or something :P I'll probably pop in from time to time when i want to fix the pages i'm reading, but am more of a reader than an editor at the moment.
Hiya. I made the revert because there was a lot of text which seemed to be copied from http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?264632, which is an infringement of their copyright. Copying text from external websites is not allowed unless we specifically have permission from them (more info here). But I agree that the link to to the video was okay, i'll add that bit back in. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! What a pleasant surprise!!! You are the first Wikipedian who's been so polite and has agreed that the revert was partially incorrect and has offered to correct the mistake. I've generally have had a miserable experience on Wikipedia with haughty and nasty Wikipedians who do not even accept that they reverted something incorrectly - let alone apologising! Great to meet you on Wikipedia. Have a great day!!! Tinpisa (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Physics is all gnomes! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
New Page Triage engagement strategy released
Hey guys!
I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.
Hello, Physics is all gnomes. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Physics is all gnomes. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
